Guidance options for visually impaired people either involve significant reliance upon others, including other people or even animals, or restrict the pace and scope of the individual's movements.
For instance, a visually-impaired person using a cane relies upon other people in his/her immediate vicinity to be cognizant and cooperative lest the cane inadvertently becomes as an obstruction, i.e., physical hazard, to those other people who may trip over or otherwise be impeded by the cane or even the visually-impaired person. Further, and particular to the visually-impaired person, the utility of the cane is limited to providing only step-by-step guidance with regard to obstacles in the immediate vicinity of the visually-impaired person; and, inanimate objects are incapable of effecting the aforementioned cognizance and cooperation towards the visually-impaired person, thus proving to be a potential obstruction to the person using the cane. Consequently, the movements of the visually-impaired person using the cane are restricted in terms of pace and physical scope.
A visually-impaired person relying upon a guide-dog is less reliant upon the cognizance and cooperation of other people in the vicinity of the visually-impaired person, relative to the person using a cane. However, the guide-dog-user is reliant upon, and therefore somewhat limited by, the guide-dog's training and subsequent guidance in familiar settings. Still, similar to the person using the cane, the person led by a guide-dog may be provided step-by-step guidance with regard to obstacles in his/her immediate vicinity, but a guide-dog is incapable of providing feedback regarding the landscape; and, thus, the pace and even the scope of the movements for the person led by a guide-dog are cautiously limited.